Arvind Kumar vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, GST Bureau Of Investigation And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
These two writ petitions, WPA 22468 of 2022 and WPA 22695 of 2022, were filed before the High Court. The petitioner, Arvind Kumar, is the owner of the goods in question. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Goods and Services Tax Bureau of Investigation. The petitions concern the goods transported in a vehicle. The procedural history leading to the petitions is not detailed in the judgment, but it appears to involve the seizure or detention of goods and a notice of hearing.
Held
The Court held that the respondent authorities concerned of GST must provide a hearing to the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the goods. If, during this hearing, the owners can satisfy the authorities and make out a case in their favour, the authorities shall grant relief in accordance with law, subject to the fulfilment of all formalities. This relief is also contingent upon the verification of the ownership of the goods. The Court directed that any relief granted shall be subject to such verification. The principle established is that owners of goods and vehicles involved in GST proceedings are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken, and relief can be granted if they satisfy the authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the goods are entitled to a hearing by the respondent authorities concerning the goods in question? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and GST procedures). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, as the owner of the goods, should be given a hearing. The judgment notes that the petitioner in WPA 22695 of 2022 is the owner of the goods and a notice of hearing shall be issued to him. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or revenue authorities regarding the entitlement to a hearing. However, the operative part of the order implies that the authorities are directed to provide a hearing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022. Headquarters & Ors. Mrs. Rita Mukherjee, Mr. Ghanshyam Jha, Mr. Rowsan Kumar Jha. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. S. Mukherjee, Mr. N. Chatterjee, Mr. D. Ghosh, Mr. V. Kothari. ……..for the State. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent authorities concerned of GST to give hearing to the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the goods and in course of hearing, if they are able to satisfy the authority concerned and making out a case in their favour, in that event, learned respondent authorities concerned shall grant the relief to them in accordance with law subject to fulfilment of all formalities, within two weeks from the date of communication of this order.
2 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in WPA 22695 of 2022 is the owner of the goods in question, a notice of hearing shall be issued to him also. Needless to mention that any relief granted by the authority concerned shall be subject to verification of the ownership of the goods in question. With this observation, both these writ petitions being WPA 22468 of 2022 and WPA 22695 of 2022 are disposed of. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.